The Master National, the MHX, and Pros
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
No, no.
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
You know Keith, AKC could be held partly to blame for the problems. They won't let the MN run a third flight, correct?
Joined
·
890 Posts
No and No. I think they should drop the whole MHX thing and continue to allow pros to run this event. The changes should be in other areas.
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
no, no.....I just don't see how excluding certain individuals benfits the sport.
Joined
·
615 Posts
no
no-no!!
judging to the standard will help a great deal.
no-no!!
judging to the standard will help a great deal.
Joined
·
3,064 Posts
No,No. Keeping out the pros will not change the judging and won't solve any problems.
Andy
Andy
Joined
·
3,346 Posts
I already stated that it doesn't matter to me if there is an extra "X" attached to my dog's name. The Honor of the Master National is in getting there, it is the journey not that dstination that is important.
If you shun the pros, you take away many working people's chance to have their dog participate. There are very few in our sport who can possibly take 2 weeks off to attend such an event.
So I voted NO - NO.
I say the Master National should learn to embrace their success and learn to manage the numbers. It's only once a year. My little local club hosts 3 huge hunt tests a year - our spring HRC test has the possibility of 300 dog entries and the Spring AKC test will see between 325 & 350 most likely - both of those tests are held in Feb this year and in April we will be hosting the Spring Grand for HRC and are expecting huge numbers there as well. We rest up over the summer and will host a 350+ dog fall AKC test...and we aren't the only club dealing with these numbers.
If there is a problem with the judging, then that should be addressed with the judges that are chosen before the event begins. There should be guidelines established as to what constitutes passing work at that level and and everybody judging should agree to adhear to what the judging team sets forth.
I also agree with WRL that each judging team should see all the dogs. You could easily have 4 judging teams and 4 test set ups. Judges stay with their tests and the dog flights rotate through the series. For the final series everybody converges onto one field and the dogs are judged by the judging team they began with. You could easily handle 400+ dogs.
If you shun the pros, you take away many working people's chance to have their dog participate. There are very few in our sport who can possibly take 2 weeks off to attend such an event.
So I voted NO - NO.
I say the Master National should learn to embrace their success and learn to manage the numbers. It's only once a year. My little local club hosts 3 huge hunt tests a year - our spring HRC test has the possibility of 300 dog entries and the Spring AKC test will see between 325 & 350 most likely - both of those tests are held in Feb this year and in April we will be hosting the Spring Grand for HRC and are expecting huge numbers there as well. We rest up over the summer and will host a 350+ dog fall AKC test...and we aren't the only club dealing with these numbers.
If there is a problem with the judging, then that should be addressed with the judges that are chosen before the event begins. There should be guidelines established as to what constitutes passing work at that level and and everybody judging should agree to adhear to what the judging team sets forth.
I also agree with WRL that each judging team should see all the dogs. You could easily have 4 judging teams and 4 test set ups. Judges stay with their tests and the dog flights rotate through the series. For the final series everybody converges onto one field and the dogs are judged by the judging team they began with. You could easily handle 400+ dogs.
Joined
·
433 Posts
I voted yes-yes.
At last year's MN Ribbon Ceremony, they made a big deal that this is a team sport -- between the handler & dog.
I understand the concerns of many working people. But when one half of the dogs are being handled by Pros, you need to ask where the sport is going.
I have great respect for the owner handler at this level of competition. I have less respect for the owner displaying the trophy their dog could not have earned with his owner on the line. I have even less respect when that owner sits in judgment at a hunt test.
Worried that standards will suffer without the Pros handling the majority of dogs? We amatures have so many resources to help us achieve the highest honors with our dogs - videos, books, magazines, Pro run group classes - there is simply no excuse for us not to handle our dogs at a high level of excellence. Too busy to go to the master national? Let's leave the event opened to those people who really appreciate its importance. Do you really think that 180 dog owners could not get away from their jobs this year?
At last year's MN Ribbon Ceremony, they made a big deal that this is a team sport -- between the handler & dog.
I understand the concerns of many working people. But when one half of the dogs are being handled by Pros, you need to ask where the sport is going.
I have great respect for the owner handler at this level of competition. I have less respect for the owner displaying the trophy their dog could not have earned with his owner on the line. I have even less respect when that owner sits in judgment at a hunt test.
Worried that standards will suffer without the Pros handling the majority of dogs? We amatures have so many resources to help us achieve the highest honors with our dogs - videos, books, magazines, Pro run group classes - there is simply no excuse for us not to handle our dogs at a high level of excellence. Too busy to go to the master national? Let's leave the event opened to those people who really appreciate its importance. Do you really think that 180 dog owners could not get away from their jobs this year?
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
You forgot the -- :idea: :!:Jerry said:
Joined
·
5,356 Posts
Jerry wrote:
I guess it's a question of "how big do we want to think?" Personally, I think it's an idea whose time has come. I'd hate to think the MNRC could shortstop the idea simply by excluding pros.
Both the MNRC and a MNARC could exist, just as the NRC and NARC exist. The MNRC can clean up its act without excluding pros if it so chooses.
The seemingly easy road is not always the best one to take... :roll:
Keith Griffith
This would have already come to pass if Milton Holcombe had not taken the field rep position with the AKC.
I guess it's a question of "how big do we want to think?" Personally, I think it's an idea whose time has come. I'd hate to think the MNRC could shortstop the idea simply by excluding pros.
Both the MNRC and a MNARC could exist, just as the NRC and NARC exist. The MNRC can clean up its act without excluding pros if it so chooses.
The seemingly easy road is not always the best one to take... :roll:
Keith Griffith
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
I voted No>.No
Problems which seem to be the current trend:
A..Too many entries which occur because some say that judging is too easy or is it the test set up is too easy at the local level?
B...Inadequate judging and testing at the MN?
Well, just a comment. If the judging does not meet the expectations of the AKC:
1...why on earth would AKC offer a 2 day master judging seminar which would allow the master judges to get a lifetime pass with no more seminars or education?
2...Is it possible that AKC has not addressed in an adequate way the educational needs of the judges and in fact, AKC is contributing to the problem? Sounds similiar to what is happening at the conformation ring, AKC doesn't really help to ensure that a breed standard(or master judging, in the case of hunt tests) is upheld???
(past problems cited were lack of workers because the pros did not work a comparable amount of time per dog run...this problem either has been solved or is not being mentioned any longer???)
Problems which seem to be the current trend:
A..Too many entries which occur because some say that judging is too easy or is it the test set up is too easy at the local level?
B...Inadequate judging and testing at the MN?
Well, just a comment. If the judging does not meet the expectations of the AKC:
1...why on earth would AKC offer a 2 day master judging seminar which would allow the master judges to get a lifetime pass with no more seminars or education?
2...Is it possible that AKC has not addressed in an adequate way the educational needs of the judges and in fact, AKC is contributing to the problem? Sounds similiar to what is happening at the conformation ring, AKC doesn't really help to ensure that a breed standard(or master judging, in the case of hunt tests) is upheld???
(past problems cited were lack of workers because the pros did not work a comparable amount of time per dog run...this problem either has been solved or is not being mentioned any longer???)
Joined
·
129 Posts
To: Pheasanttomeetyou
I hope you tell all you Pro friends you voted YES/YES ! I think you will get a nice welcome next time you go train with them.
I hope you tell all you Pro friends you voted YES/YES ! I think you will get a nice welcome next time you go train with them.
Joined
·
2,625 Posts
I voted no on both questions. However, I do understand the argument that a lower entry would obviously give the judges more time and consequently the OPPORTUNITY to do a better job ... just don't think it would necessarily happen. And even so, excluding pros is not the way to lower entries.
On the question of the MHX, I am very much in favor of adding that title as a way of keeping abreast of the improving performance of the dogs. But I would like to see it somehow incorporated into the weekend tests rather than being tied to the MN. But that is beyond the scope of this thread. Maybe I'll start another.
JS
On the question of the MHX, I am very much in favor of adding that title as a way of keeping abreast of the improving performance of the dogs. But I would like to see it somehow incorporated into the weekend tests rather than being tied to the MN. But that is beyond the scope of this thread. Maybe I'll start another.
JS
Joined
·
184 Posts
No, No.
Some people seriously believe that excluding some (if arguably not most) of the countrys best dogs and handlers in a event that is supposed to showcase dogs that are the best of the best, will somehow improve the judging standard? In addition some would really feel a sense of accomplishment from a title derived from such a mire of mediocrity? Wow! maybe it would be better yet if they further limited it to only dogs that have an odd number of letters in thier registered names?
Maybe I am am not as intelligent as most folks , but off hand I can't recall one single great thing I have accomplished that was easy. :shock:
Some people seriously believe that excluding some (if arguably not most) of the countrys best dogs and handlers in a event that is supposed to showcase dogs that are the best of the best, will somehow improve the judging standard? In addition some would really feel a sense of accomplishment from a title derived from such a mire of mediocrity? Wow! maybe it would be better yet if they further limited it to only dogs that have an odd number of letters in thier registered names?
Maybe I am am not as intelligent as most folks , but off hand I can't recall one single great thing I have accomplished that was easy. :shock:
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
